Mecham

Mecham v. Crump

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 200·1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 850·30 P.2d 568
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 1934Docket No. 4953.California1,852 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jamison, J.

This is an action for damages for injuries received by plaintiff resulting from being struck by an automobile operated by defendant Lillian Crump.

Defendants E. M. Crump and Lillian Crump are husband and wife and at the time of the accident Lillian Crump was operating the automobile by and with the consent of her said husband.

This action was tried by a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against both defendants. Defendants moved for a new trial, and same being denied, both defendants appealed from the judgment rendered upon said verdict.

Defendants contend that the evidence did not show negligence upon the part of defendant Lillian Crump and that it did show contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff.

The evidence produced by plaintiff was substantially as follows:

Respondent Mecham, at the time he suffered the injuries was the foreman of the Force Construction Company and was engaged in filling in the low places and cutting down the shoulders along the paved portion of the Sacramento and Stockton highway. His duties as such foreman required of him that he sometimes operate the equipment, sometimes set stakes and sometimes perform physical…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.